🚀 go-pugleaf

Looks like you are the one who needs to look it up.  What we are living in
was designed by our founding fathers to be a democratic republic, where the
people decide who will represent them through the use of democratic
elections.  The "rule of law" type of government that you speak of was NOT
part of the original Constitution, nor under the current one as it was
originally written.  The men who wrote the current Constitution did not
intend for an all powerful judiciary that is able to make is own laws, as
our does today with their "interpretations" of the Constitution.  The first
Supreme Court, and most throughout the life of this country, based their
judgements on the "intent" of the legislature in writing the law to
determine how the law is interpreted.  We operated with our legislative
branch, representing the people of their respective districts/states,
writing the laws.  The laws were enforced as written and the courts only
interpreted them when there were gray areas in the law, using the intent as
a guideline.  Today, however, our judiciary basically interpret the laws as
they want them to read, not how they intended by those who wrote them.
    A perfect case in point it the Ten Commandments case in Alabama.  The
clearly stated intent of the founding fathers in the first amendment was to
keep the FEDERAL government from favoring one "Church" over another.
Looking at what was going on at that time, it is clear that the intent was
to prevent the Federal government from favoring one denomination (using
today's terms) over another.  This was in response to the wars erupting all
over Europe between Catholics and Presbyterians, and between different
groups within these categories as well, i.e. puritans against Anglicans,
etc.  It was NEVER intended to keep all mention of religion out of the
government, as the ACLU wants today and is getting with the help of our
judiciary system in this "republic based on rule of law."
    Our founding fathers, as stated in many documents, most importantly the
Federalist papers, make it clear that they wanted a government that would
stay out of the affairs of their citizens, and out of the affairs of the
states (10th amendment) and wanted a government that followed the will of
the people, not the will of the "law."  The consent of the governed is key
in our country, and has been through most of the time after the Constitution
was ratified (there are exceptions, of course) which shows that this was to
be a republic based on the collective will of the people.  As a matter of
fact, if you read the Constitution through the first 12 amendments, you will
see that the document ONLY applied to the relationships between itself and
other nations, between itself and the states, and between itself and the
people.  No where did it have ANY control over the relationships among the
several states (except in matters of taxation and common defense), nor did
it have ANY control over the relationship between the states and their
respective citizens, other than the "full faith and credit" clause.  As a
matter of fact, as written through the first 12 amendments, the states COULD
each have their own official religions!


-- 
Steve Hall
Commander - Lt. Col. Wm. M. Luffman Camp #938 SCV - Chatsworth, GA
Moderator - Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans E-mail groups

"Phil Couch" <couchp@spamcomcast.com> wrote in message
news:aL2cnce3gqny7daiXTWJiA@comcast.com...
>
> "Steve Hall" <tunnlhll@catt.com> wrote in message
> news:biej2t$eb9@library2.airnews.net...
> > And what is your definition of a "republic?"  We have elected
> > "representatives" who are supposed to "represent" those who elected
them,
> > but when they get to Atlanta, or Washington for that matter, the only
> > "represent" their own self-interest and their political careers.  They
are
> > so fearful of loosing their next election that they will listen to the
> > political advisors and not the people who put them into office.  Roy
> Barnes
> > and several legislators learned that they listened to the wrong people,
> and
> > several more are learning that now.
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Steve Hall
> > Commander - Lt. Col. Wm. M. Luffman Camp #938 SCV - Chatsworth, GA
> > Moderator - Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans E-mail groups
> >
> > "David" <jackrabbitslim711@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:lRmcnW5dUPrZqNeiXTWJjg@comcast.com...
> > > Actually it's a republic based on rule of law, not a democracy
> > > "Steve Hall" <tunnlhll@catt.com> wrote in message
> > > news:bi9hh7$s8v@library1.airnews.net...
> > > > The RIGHT THING would be to allow a FAIR vote of the people of this
> > state,
> > > > after all, this is supposed to be a democracy!
> > > >
> > > > I know, someone will say that it is really a "representative
> democracy"
> > > but
> > > > the flag fight clearly shows that our representatives are NOT
> following
> > > the
> > > > will of their constituents.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> Look it up, I don't have to define it.  A republic is what the 'Founding
> Fathers' started.
>
>